I wanted to make sure you saw Swifthack.com, which I launched this morning.

SwiftHack.comoffers dozens of links daily to reality-based news and analysis related to the ClimateGate story. The site will serve as an informal clearinghouse for pushback against the rapidly developing SwiftHack smear campaign against climate science.
Scientists, advocates, activists, bloggers and journalists have begun the important work of educating their audiences on the true story of ClimateGate — the latest iteration of a decades-long smear campaign against climate science).

SwiftHack.com intends to be a repository of such efforts. With talks now underway in Copenhagen, correcting the false narratives being pushed by an army of oil-funded deniers is especially critical.

I need your help to make this site successful. First and foremost, email ideas, tips, blog posts and news headlines to swifthack at gmail d0t c0m. Second, please help spread the word about the site however you can.

E-mails alleged to undermine climate change science were held back for weeks after being stolen so that their release would cause maximum damage to the Copenhagen climate conference, according to a source close to the investigation of the theft. […]

The computer was hacked repeatedly, the source close to the investigation said: “It was hacked into in October and possibly earlier. Then they gained access again in midNovember.” By not releasing the e-mails until two weeks before Copenhagen, the hacker ensured that the debate about them would rage during the summit. Very few of the e-mails are recent. One, in which Professor Jones mentions a “trick” which could “hide the decline” in temperatures, was sent in 1999.

An alleged series of attempted security breaches at the University of Victoria in the run-up to next week’s Copenhagen summit on climate change is evidence of a larger effort to discredit climate science, says a renowned B.C. researcher.

Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through. […]

University of Victoria spokeswoman Patty Pitts said there have also been attempts to hack into climate scientists’ computers, as well as incidents in which people impersonated network technicians to try to gain access to campus offices and data. […]

A powerful way of framing a message considers people’s goals. Do they view their goal as making something good happen, or preventing something bad from happening?

People approach goals differently. People with a promotion focus see a goal as an ideal and are concerned with advancement. They prefer to act eagerly to maximize or increase gains. People with a prevention focus, however, see a goal as something they ought to do and are concerned with maintaining the status quo. They prefer to act vigilantly to minimize or decrease losses.

Research shows that tailoring messages to people’s natural promotion and prevention orientations increases the level of response for both groups, regardless of whether their response was positive or negative. These findings support the idea of framing messages from multiple perspectives to accomplish environmental goals. For example, if a local city wants people to increase their recycling, city officials should explain options in different ways, some with a promotion focus and some with a prevention focus. A promotion message would emphasize “going the extra mile” (e.g., going out of one’s way to recycle, how recycling benefits the community). A prevention message would encourage “dotting the ‘i’ and crossing the ‘t'” (e.g., being careful to recycle, how not recycling hurts the community).